N.C. Elections Board Adopts New Absentee Ballot Rules on 3-2 Party-Line Votes
The Republican-majority State Board of Elections approved rules shifting the job of fixing mail-ballot errors from county staff to voters; a Republican-appointed commission must still sign off before the November midterms.
One Envelope Voids the Ballot. The Other Doesn't.
Here is the detail that gets lost in most of the coverage. North Carolina's new absentee ballot rules treat two nearly identical mistakes in opposite ways. If a voter's outer return envelope comes unsealed but the inner "ballot envelope" inside it is sealed, county staff do nothing. The ballot counts[21].
But if that inner envelope is the one left unsealed, the ballot is dead. Not fixable. Staff must "spoil" it, meaning it's voided, and try to get the voter a new one[4].
That distinction sits at the center of a fight that just split North Carolina's State Board of Elections 3-2, straight down party lines. The three Republicans on the board voted to adopt the new rule on Monday, July 20, 2026. The two Democrats voted no[1][8].
Whether that inner-envelope rule is a sensible security fix or a trap for careless voters depends entirely on which side you ask. Both sides agree on the facts. They disagree on what the facts mean.
How a Memo Became a Rule
Start with what nobody disputes. A North Carolina absentee voter fills out a ballot, seals it inside an inner envelope, signs it in front of witnesses, then puts that envelope inside an outer return envelope addressed to the county[1].
Under the old practice, if a county worker opened the outer envelope and found the inner one unsealed, the worker could just seal it and keep processing the ballot. That's gone now. Under the new rule, an unsealed inner envelope means the whole ballot is spoiled[1].
Timing decides what happens next. If staff catch the problem more than three days before Election Day, they mail the voter a replacement ballot. If they catch it inside that three-day window, they have to call the voter and tell them their mailed ballot won't count — they need to show up and vote in person instead[1][9].
The old sealing-it-yourself practice was never actually a rule. It came from Numbered Memo 2021-03, an internal staff directive the board issued in 2021[1][5]. A memo like that never goes through the state's formal rulemaking process, which requires public notice, a comment period, and sign-off from the N.C. Rules Review Commission — the body that checks whether an agency rule is legally sound[12]. The new absentee rules did go through that process. They still need the commission's approval before they apply to any real election[6].
The Case for the Seal
Republican board members argue this is really a story about legal housekeeping, not vote suppression. Their strongest point: an unsealed inner envelope breaks the chain of custody, meaning nobody can prove the ballot inside wasn't opened, read, or swapped somewhere between the voter's kitchen table and the county office[1].
A staffer sealing that envelope later doesn't restore what was lost, the argument goes — it just hides that the seal was ever missing. Board secretary Stacey "Four" Eggers IV, who led the case at the meeting, argued that a government employee shouldn't be touching a voter's ballot envelope in a way state law never authorized[1].
Their procedural argument is arguably sharper. Numbered Memo 2021-03 was never checked against the actual statute by any outside reviewer, because a memo doesn't go through that check — only a formal rule does[1][5]. From that view, they haven't invented a new hurdle. They've moved an old, legally untested policy into a process built specifically to test it.
They also note the rule is narrower than critics suggest. An unsealed outer envelope triggers nothing at all, as long as the inner one is sealed[21]. And a voter who hands in a ballot in person, sealing it in front of a clerk, isn't affected by any of this[1].
The Cost of a Two-Second Fix
Democratic board members and voting-rights groups don't dispute the chain-of-custody logic outright. They argue the rule solves a small, rare problem by creating a much bigger, more common one. Sealing a flap takes a staffer two seconds. A spoiled ballot costs the voter a new request, a new mailed ballot, a new witness signature, and precious days on the calendar[6][17].
Those days matter most for the voters least able to spare them — someone deployed overseas, a nursing-home resident, anyone hard to reach by phone within a three-day window[6][17]. WRAL's own headline on the meeting pulled from a member's quote calling the vote "supporting a lie"[3].
They also point to a pattern, not just this one rule. Four days earlier, on July 16, the same 3-2 majority voted to change how county boards handle a suspected false statement on a photo-ID exception form. The old standard required all five members of a county board to agree before rejecting a provisional ballot on that basis. The new standard needs only a simple majority — three of five[10][11].
That vote drew more than 1,600 public comments, and most of them opposed the change[11]. Taken together, Democratic board members and groups like Common Cause N.C. and Democracy Docket read the two votes as one direction of travel: every recent change makes ballot rejection easier, and none makes it harder, all on the same 3-2 party line[7][11][17].
Why North Carolina, Why Now
Underneath both arguments is a plain structural fact: North Carolina decides big races by tiny margins, so any rule touching thousands of ballots is a lever on outcomes. In 2024, Allison Riggs won a state Supreme Court seat by just 734 votes, after two recounts. Her opponent, Jefferson Griffin, then challenged more than 60,000 ballots[13][14][23]. The state board rejected his request to throw them all out, and the state Supreme Court later voted to discard some — but not all — of the contested ballots[14][24].
When a winning margin is smaller than the number of ballots a rule could affect, both parties know the rule isn't neutral, whatever its stated purpose. Layer onto that a second fact: mail voting in North Carolina has leaned Democratic since 2020, while in-person voting leans Republican[7]. That means a rule making mail ballots easier to spoil is likely to land unevenly by party, regardless of the legal reasoning behind it.
That's the pressure driving both sides to treat this fight as more than paperwork. A Republican-majority board gets to set rules that outlast its own term, since a rule approved by the Rules Review Commission is much harder to undo later than a memo ever was[12]. Democrats, expecting to lose the rulemaking fight, are building a public record — comment counts, dissents, formal objections — that becomes the raw material for a lawsuit if rejections spike in November[18].
The Number Nobody Has
News coverage of the vote split along familiar lines. Carolina Journal, funded by the conservative John Locke Foundation, led with the security rationale and gave Eggers room to make his procedural case, while tucking the rejection-risk argument into an attributed "critics say"[1]. Slate went further in the other direction, headlining a "plan to disenfranchise" — asserting motive as settled fact rather than argument[7]. Coverage from WFAE and CBS17 sat closer to the middle, describing the change mechanically, though CBS17's framing as an "extra step" arguably understates that the original ballot is voided outright, not just delayed[8][9].
One thing is true regardless of framing: nobody has published a count of how many North Carolina ballots actually arrived with an unsealed inner envelope in past elections[15]. Without that number, "this affects almost no one" and "this could swing a close race" are both just assertions, not measurements.
The rules aren't in force yet. They still need sign-off from the Rules Review Commission, whose members are appointed by the Republican-led General Assembly — and Eggers has said he expects that approval to come[6]. If it does, the clock starts fast: absentee ballots for the 2026 general election go out September 4, early voting runs October 15 through 31, and Election Day is November 3[16]. Whether the new rule quietly fixes a legal gap or quietly costs real voters their ballots is a question that won't have an answer until county workers start opening envelopes this fall.
Summary
On Monday, July 20, 2026, the North Carolina State Board of Elections voted 3-2 to adopt permanent rules on how counties handle absentee ballots that arrive with problems[1][8]. The three Republican members voted yes. The two Democrats voted no[1]. The central change is small on paper and large in effect. A mail voter in North Carolina puts the marked ballot inside an inner "ballot envelope," signs it in front of witnesses, then puts that inside an outer return envelope. Under the old practice, if county staff found the inner envelope unsealed, they could seal it themselves and keep processing the ballot[1]. Under the new rule, that ballot is "spoiled" — voided. If staff catch it more than three days before Election Day, they must mail the voter a fresh ballot. If they catch it inside three days, they must phone the voter and tell them to vote in person instead[1][9].
The two sides do not agree on what the fight is about. Republicans on the board say it is about following the law and protecting the ballot. Their argument is that an envelope arriving unsealed means no one can prove the ballot inside was not seen or altered in transit, and that a government employee sealing a voter's envelope is not a fix — it is an official touching a ballot they have no authority to touch[1]. They also make a procedural point: the old sealing practice came from Numbered Memo 2021-03, an internal staff directive, not from a rule vetted for compliance with state statute[1][5].
Democratic board members and voting-rights groups say the real issue is who bears the cost of a small mistake. Their argument is that the rule moves the burden from a trained staffer who can fix the problem in seconds onto a voter who may be elderly, disabled, deployed overseas, or simply unreachable by phone[6][17]. They also point to timing and to control. The same board voted 3-2 on July 16 to let county boards reject a provisional ballot by simple majority when they believe a voter lied on a photo-ID exception form; the old standard required all five county members to agree[10][11]. The board drew more than 1,600 public comments on that change, most opposed[11].
The rules are not yet in force. The N.C. Rules Review Commission, whose members are appointed by the Republican-led General Assembly, must approve them first[6]. Eggers said at the meeting that he expected the commission to sign off[6]. Absentee ballots for the 2026 general election start going out September 4, with Election Day on November 3[16]. The single most contested question is empirical and not yet answerable: how many real voters would actually lose a ballot under the new rule. Neither side has produced a count of unsealed-inner-envelope ballots from past elections.
The Event
On Monday, July 20, 2026, the North Carolina State Board of Elections voted 3-2 along party lines to adopt a set of permanent administrative rules governing absentee ballot deficiencies, including 08 NCAC 18 .0501 through .0505[1][4][8]. The three Republican members voted in favor and the two Democratic members voted against[1]. Four days earlier, on Thursday, July 16, the same board voted 3-2 on party lines to change the standard county boards use when they suspect a voter falsified a photo-ID exception form, from unanimous agreement to a majority[10][11]. The absentee rules require approval from the N.C. Rules Review Commission before taking effect[6].
Undisputed Facts
- The State Board of Elections adopted the absentee deficiency rules on a 3-2 vote, with three Republican members in favor and two Democratic members opposed[1][8].
- Under adopted rule 08 NCAC 18 .0503, an absentee ballot found inside an unsealed inner ballot envelope, or one that appears opened and resealed, is a non-curable deficiency: the ballot is spoiled and reissued if there is time[4].
- Under adopted rule 08 NCAC 18 .0504, an unsealed OUTER return envelope does not require any action, so long as the inner ballot envelope is sealed[21].
- If an unsealed inner envelope is found within three days of Election Day, county staff must contact the voter by phone and direct them to vote in person[1][9].
- The prior sealing practice was set out in Numbered Memo 2021-03, a staff directive issued by the State Board, not an administrative rule reviewed by the Rules Review Commission[1][5].
- On July 16, 2026, the board voted 3-2 to lower the threshold for rejecting a provisional ballot over a suspected false photo-ID exception form from unanimous to majority agreement of the five-member county board[10][11].
- The board received more than 1,600 public comments before the photo-ID vote, most of them opposed to the change[11].
- The N.C. Rules Review Commission, whose members are appointed by the Republican-led General Assembly, must approve the absentee rules before they take effect[6].
- Absentee ballots for the 2026 North Carolina general election begin going out September 4, 2026; in-person early voting runs October 15-31; Election Day is November 3, 2026[16].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Margin math in a tipping-point state
- North Carolina decides statewide races on razor margins. In 2024, Allison Riggs won a state Supreme Court seat by 734 votes after two recounts, and Jefferson Griffin then protested more than 60,000 ballots[13][14][23]. The State Board rejected the request to discard those 60,000, and the state Supreme Court later voted to throw out some but not all of the contested ballots[14][24]. When the winning margin is smaller than the number of ballots a rule touches, the rule is a lever on outcomes — and both parties know it.
- Who administers, wins arguments later
- The deeper fight is over control of election administration itself, not over envelopes. North Carolina Republicans have moved appointment power and rule authority toward bodies the legislature controls[6][22]. Converting practice from staff memos into Rules Review Commission-approved rules locks decisions in place beyond the next election[12].
- Mail voting has become partisan-coded
- Since 2020, mail voting in North Carolina has leaned Democratic and in-person voting Republican[7]. That makes any rule about mail ballots directionally predictable in its partisan effect, whatever its stated purpose. Both sides argue procedure and count votes.
- The empirical hole
- Neither camp has published a count of ballots that arrived with an unsealed inner envelope in any past North Carolina election. Without that number, "this affects almost no one" and "this could swing a district" are both assertions. Separately, NC Newsline reported that thousands of 2024 mail ballots were rejected under the abolished three-day grace period — evidence that mail-ballot deadline and defect rules do move real numbers[15].
Material realityThe rules are adopted but not yet in force; the Rules Review Commission is the remaining gate, and Eggers said publicly he expects it to approve[6]. The calendar is short. Absentee ballots go out September 4, 2026; early voting runs October 15-31; Election Day is November 3[16]. Mechanically, the change is narrow and real at the same time. It applies to the inner ballot envelope only — an unsealed outer return envelope requires no action under .0504, and a voter who seals the inner envelope in front of a clerk at a county office is unaffected[21]. But when it does apply, the ballot is voided rather than fixed, and the remedy depends entirely on timing: more than three days out, a replacement ballot goes in the mail; inside three days, the voter must be reached by phone and get to a polling place in person[1][9]. That last scenario is the one with no fallback for a voter who cannot travel. Meanwhile the July 16 photo-ID change lowers a county board's rejection threshold from five votes out of five to three out of five, which removes the minority's veto in a partisan five-member body[10][11]. None of this is self-executing: county-level implementation, and any lawsuit, will determine the actual count of lost ballots.
Narrative as a weaponThree groups are actively shaping how this reads. The board's Republican majority wants you to see a legal correction — a policy that lived improperly in a staff memo, now moved into a rule that faced public notice and outside review, with the envelope seal treated as a chain-of-custody safeguard rather than a trap. Democratic board members and allied groups such as Common Cause N.C. and Democracy Docket want you to see a sequence rather than an incident: two party-line votes four days apart, both loosening the standard for discarding a ballot, in the year North Carolina may decide the U.S. House. National commentary, Slate most sharply, wants you to skip the rule text entirely and read intent. The under-covered actor is the county elections office, which has no narrative at all and simply inherits the phone calls. And the fact most useful to a reader is one nobody is supplying: no one has released how many ballots arrived with unsealed inner envelopes in past elections. Both the reassurance and the alarm are currently unfalsifiable.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTheir case rests on three claims. First, chain of custody: a sealed inner envelope is the only thing proving that no one opened, read, or swapped a ballot between the voter's kitchen table and the county office. Once that seal is missing, the ballot's integrity cannot be reconstructed after the fact, and a staffer sealing it later does not restore what was lost — it just hides that it was ever open[1]. Second, and the point they consider strongest: they did not invent a rejection standard, they moved an existing one out of a staff memo and into a real rule. Numbered Memo 2021-03 was an internal directive that no outside body ever checked against the statute[1][5]. Eggers argued that where a statute sets no unanimity requirement, staff cannot manufacture one by memo[1]. Third, an official handling a voter's sealed ballot envelope is exactly the kind of unsupervised contact election law is written to prevent. They note the rule is narrower than critics say: an unsealed OUTER envelope triggers nothing, and a voter who hand-delivers and seals in front of a clerk is fine[21]. And a spoiled ballot is not a lost vote — it is a replacement ballot in the mail[1].
WhyTwo goals, one procedural and one political. The board's Republican members, seated after control shifted to the Republican-led state government, have a mandate to redo Democratic-era administrative guidance through formal rulemaking rather than memos[1][6]. Politically, mail voting in North Carolina has skewed Democratic since 2020, so tighter mail rules carry no cost to their coalition and a plausible benefit[7].
Impact on themThey gain durable rules that survive future board turnover, because a rule approved by the Rules Review Commission is harder to undo than a memo[12]. They also absorb the risk: if legitimate voters lose ballots in a close November race, the board majority owns the outcome publicly and in court[6][17].
Frames it asThey argue the dispute is not about envelopes but about who pays for a trivial mistake. A staffer sealing a flap takes two seconds and costs nothing; a spoiled ballot costs a voter a new request, a new mailing, a new witness signature, and days on the calendar — days that a deployed service member, a nursing-home resident, or a voter without reliable phone service may not have[6][17]. Their second argument is about discretion: rules that let county boards decide when to act invite uneven enforcement, and North Carolina's county boards are themselves partisan bodies, so the same unsealed envelope could be handled one way in a Democratic-leaning county and another way in a Republican-leaning one[3][18]. Their third and sharpest point is pattern, not incident. They read the July 16 photo-ID vote alongside the July 20 absentee vote as one direction of travel: every change makes rejection easier and none makes it harder, all on 3-2 party-line votes, all in the year North Carolina may decide control of the U.S. House[7][11][17].
WhyProtecting a voting method their coalition uses heavily, and preserving margin in a state where statewide races are routinely decided by fractions of a point[13]. They also want a public record built now — comment counts, dissents, and stated objections are the raw material for a later legal challenge[18].
Impact on themIf the rules stand and rejections rise, Democratic candidates likely absorb more of the loss, given mail-voting patterns since 2020[7]. If they win a court fight or the Rules Review Commission balks, they gain a precedent limiting the board majority's reach[6].
Frames it asAdministrators are caught between two duties and mostly want clarity, not a side. Their strongest argument for the change is that a written rule is easier to defend than a memo when a losing candidate protests results — under the old practice, a staffer who sealed an envelope had no rule to point to[1][5]. Their strongest argument against is operational: the three-day trigger creates a hard workload cliff. Inside that window they must phone voters individually and explain that the ballot they already mailed will not count and they must show up in person[1][9]. That is a hand-labor task landing in the busiest week of the cycle.
WhyAvoiding blame. County directors are the people deposed when a ballot dispute reaches court, and they prefer bright-line rules over judgment calls that later look partisan[3].
Impact on themMore spoiled-and-reissued ballots means more printing, more postage, and more staff phone time in late October. Small rural counties with two or three full-time staff feel this hardest[9].
Frames it asThe commission's own account of its job is narrow and technical. It does not weigh whether a rule is wise. It checks four things: statutory authority, clarity, necessity, and whether the agency followed proper procedure[12]. On that standard, moving a policy out of an unreviewed memo and into a noticed, commented-on rule is precisely what the Administrative Procedure Act is for — and Republicans argue the 2021 memo is the item that never faced this test[1][5]. Critics counter that the review is not a neutral filter when every commissioner is a legislative appointee of one party[6].
WhyLegislative Republicans have spent several sessions moving election administration authority away from the governor's office and toward bodies they control. Approving these rules consolidates that shift[6][22].
Impact on themThe commission is now the only institutional checkpoint left before the rules apply to the November 3 election[6][16]. Eggers publicly predicted approval[6].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 5
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WFAE | U.S. center-left, NPR member station | 2 | "State elections board tightens rules for mail ballots" — neutral verb, no motive assigned. | The most restrained framing in the set. "Tightens" is accurate and non-loaded. The omission is context: little on why Republicans think the prior memo was legally defective. |
| CBS17 | U.S. center, Nexstar-owned local | 3 | "Forget to seal your mail-in ballot? New state elections rule adds extra step for voters" — pitched as service journalism. | Reader-useful and low-spin, but it treats a contested party-line vote as a consumer tip. Framing the change as an "extra step" understates that the original ballot is voided, and the partisan dispute is largely absent. |
| WRAL | U.S. center, North Carolina local | 4 | "'We're supporting a lie': NC elections board votes to throw out ballots more easily" — a quotation from the meeting is elevated to the headline. | The reporting body is even-handed and mechanically detailed, but headline selection does the editorializing. Pulling the single hottest quote from a multi-hour hearing frames the vote as bad faith before the reader reaches the rule text. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right | 5 | "NCSBE adopts absentee rules critics say risk more rejections" — the rules are presented as a legal cleanup, with the rejection risk quarantined inside an attributed clause. | Voice asymmetry. The security and statutory rationale is reported flatly; the harm is always "critics say." It gives Eggers extended space to explain the numbered-memo problem, and does not ask how many voters the rule would actually affect. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left, States Newsroom nonprofit network, donor-funded progressive | 6 | "NC elections board moves to make it easier to toss voters' ballots" — the voter's loss is the subject of the sentence. | "Toss" instead of "spoil" or "reject." The word implies carelessness. The reporting is factually sound on vote counts and the Rules Review Commission, but the .0504 carve-outs — the unsealed outer envelope that triggers nothing — go unmentioned, which makes the rule sound broader than its text. |
| Democracy Docket | U.S. left, litigation-advocacy site founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias | 7 | "North Carolina's Republican-led election board makes it easier to reject ballots" — party control is placed in the subject. | Frames every procedural step as an escalation in a continuing campaign. This is a party-aligned advocacy publisher, not a newsroom, though it is often cited as neutral; its value is speed and accurate legal detail, not balance. |
| Slate | U.S. left | 8 | "North Carolina Republicans Have a New Plan to Disenfranchise Voters. It Could Determine Control of Congress." | Motive is asserted, not argued. "Plan to disenfranchise" states intent as fact, and the House-control frame converts an administrative rule into a national power story. No Republican rationale appears in a form a Republican would recognize. |
References
- NCSBE adopts absentee rules critics say risk more rejections — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; published by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative North Carolina policy organization
- Mail-in ballots could be more easily thrown out, under new NC proposal — WRAL · U.S. center; Raleigh commercial broadcaster owned by Capitol Broadcasting Company
- 'We're supporting a lie': NC elections board votes to throw out ballots more easily — WRAL · U.S. center; Raleigh commercial broadcaster owned by Capitol Broadcasting Company
- 08 NCAC 18 .0503 proposed for adoption (absentee deficiencies requiring spoiled ballot) — N.C. State Board of Elections · Primary source; state agency rule text, currently 3-2 Republican majority board
- Numbered Memo 2021-03: Absentee Container-Return Envelope Deficiencies — N.C. State Board of Elections · Primary source; agency directive issued under the prior board composition
- NC elections board vote makes it easier to throw out mail-in ballots — NC Newsline · U.S. left; States Newsroom, a donor-funded nonprofit network with progressive backing
- North Carolina Republicans Have a New Plan to Disenfranchise Voters. It Could Determine Control of Congress. — Slate · U.S. left; commentary-heavy national magazine
- State elections board tightens rules for mail ballots — WFAE · U.S. center-left; Charlotte NPR member station, listener- and foundation-funded
- Forget to seal your mail-in ballot? New state elections rule adds extra step for voters — CBS17 · U.S. center; Nexstar Media Group-owned local station
- NCSBE OKs photo ID rules critics say risk ballot rejection — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation-funded
- NC elections board moves to make it easier to toss voters' ballots — NC Newsline · U.S. left; States Newsroom nonprofit network
- Rulemaking — N.C. State Board of Elections · Primary source; state agency procedural page
- 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election — Wikipedia · Crowd-edited tertiary reference; used only for the certified margin and case timeline
- NCSBE rejects GOP's request to throw out 60,000 ballots — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation-funded
- Thousands of NC mail ballots rejected in 2024 would have been accepted under abolished grace period — NC Newsline · U.S. left; States Newsroom nonprofit network
- Absentee Voting Begins Monday for the 2026 Primary Election in NC — N.C. State Board of Elections · Primary source; state agency press release
- North Carolina's Republican-led election board makes it easier to reject ballots — Democracy Docket · U.S. left advocacy; founded by Marc Elias, a Democratic Party election lawyer
- The NC State Board of Elections is proposing harmful new voting rules: Here's what you can do — Common Cause North Carolina · Advocacy; self-described nonpartisan democracy-reform group whose positions align with the U.S. left on voting access
- Notice of Text — Absentee Deficiencies rules (Title 08, State Board of Elections) — N.C. State Board of Elections · Primary source; official rulemaking notice
- 08 NCAC 18 .0505 proposed for adoption — N.C. State Board of Elections · Primary source; state agency rule text
- Mark Up: Irregularities Do Not Require Further Action — 08 NCAC 18.0504 — North Carolina Election Integrity Team · U.S. right; conservative election-monitoring volunteer group; used here for its reproduction of the rule text
- State Board Changes NC Election Rules in Lead-up to Midterms — Queen City Nerve · U.S. left; Charlotte alt-weekly
- North Carolina Supreme Court race hangs on unresolved ballot challenges — Votebeat · U.S. center; nonprofit newsroom focused on election administration, philanthropically funded
- NC Supreme Court votes to throw out some, but not all, ballots contested in 2024 race for seat on court — WRAL · U.S. center; Capitol Broadcasting Company